Thanks for posting this Allegra! I was actually looking into this the other day and one thing that stopped me from giving as an individual donor was understanding exactly how cost-effective groups working on this are. My general understanding is that traditional humanitarian efforts aren’t particularly cost-effective if your goal is to help the most people (I think largely because these efforts raise lots of money through salience and they are not as rigorously designed as GiveWell charities might be—but these might not be true in this case).
Do you have any information or research into Emergency Response Rooms or other groups working in Sudan on how many people they are helping or lives they are saving?
Great question! I completely understand wanting to see rigorous data on cost-effectiveness. You’re right that traditional humanitarian efforts don’t always meet the same standards as GiveWell charities. However, the Sudan context presents some unique challenges for quantitative measurement.
I know of two independent research reports on ERRs:
1. Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP) case study (June-August 2024, published October 2024) affiliated with the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the Institute of Development Studies (linked here: SSHAP report)
2. ACAPS report (October 2024) - ACAPS is an independent humanitarian analysis organization (linked here: ACAPS report)
What we know about ERR impact:
Both reports confirm ERRs are operating at significant scale. Between 2023-2024, ERRs provided first aid, delivered medicines including for chronic diseases, mapped safe evacuation routes, supported IDPs in shelters, established communal kitchens, distributed food, and operated hospitals and local health facilities. Between December 2024 and May 2025, after over 1 million people returned to Khartoum, ERRs initiated water and electricity infrastructure repairs, rehabilitation of damaged health facilities, and provision of food and health services.
The challenge with quantifying lives saved:
Both reports acknowledge a critical limitation: ERRs are volunteer networks operating in active conflict zones, not formal organizations with monitoring & evaluation systems. ERRs face time-consuming reporting obligations that volunteers describe as onerous and a mismatch with their communal neighborhood accountability mechanisms. They use transparency with their local communities rather than the formal impact metrics international NGOs produce.
Why ERRs might be more cost-effective than you’d expect:
Extremely low overhead: Volunteers have worked unpaid for over two years, meaning nearly 100% of donations go directly to services
Access where others can’t reach: ERRs’ adaptability, presence in conflict areas, and proximity to communities have enabled them to respond where other national and international responders could not
Community accountability: Being members of communities themselves allows ERRs to implement informal yet effective accountability measures, such as public complaint handling and transparent procurement rules
My honest assessment: You won’t find GiveWell-style cost-per-life-saved calculations for ERRs. The operating environment makes that impossible. They’re running communal kitchens during bombardments and evacuating people from active conflict zones. The independent research confirms they’re filling critical gaps at massive scale, but if you’re looking for quantified cost-effectiveness metrics, those don’t exist yet.
Thanks for posting this Allegra! I was actually looking into this the other day and one thing that stopped me from giving as an individual donor was understanding exactly how cost-effective groups working on this are. My general understanding is that traditional humanitarian efforts aren’t particularly cost-effective if your goal is to help the most people (I think largely because these efforts raise lots of money through salience and they are not as rigorously designed as GiveWell charities might be—but these might not be true in this case).
Do you have any information or research into Emergency Response Rooms or other groups working in Sudan on how many people they are helping or lives they are saving?
Great question! I completely understand wanting to see rigorous data on cost-effectiveness. You’re right that traditional humanitarian efforts don’t always meet the same standards as GiveWell charities. However, the Sudan context presents some unique challenges for quantitative measurement.
I know of two independent research reports on ERRs:
1. Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP) case study (June-August 2024, published October 2024) affiliated with the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the Institute of Development Studies (linked here: SSHAP report)
2. ACAPS report (October 2024) - ACAPS is an independent humanitarian analysis organization (linked here: ACAPS report)
What we know about ERR impact:
Both reports confirm ERRs are operating at significant scale. Between 2023-2024, ERRs provided first aid, delivered medicines including for chronic diseases, mapped safe evacuation routes, supported IDPs in shelters, established communal kitchens, distributed food, and operated hospitals and local health facilities. Between December 2024 and May 2025, after over 1 million people returned to Khartoum, ERRs initiated water and electricity infrastructure repairs, rehabilitation of damaged health facilities, and provision of food and health services.
The challenge with quantifying lives saved:
Both reports acknowledge a critical limitation: ERRs are volunteer networks operating in active conflict zones, not formal organizations with monitoring & evaluation systems. ERRs face time-consuming reporting obligations that volunteers describe as onerous and a mismatch with their communal neighborhood accountability mechanisms. They use transparency with their local communities rather than the formal impact metrics international NGOs produce.
Why ERRs might be more cost-effective than you’d expect:
Extremely low overhead: Volunteers have worked unpaid for over two years, meaning nearly 100% of donations go directly to services
Access where others can’t reach: ERRs’ adaptability, presence in conflict areas, and proximity to communities have enabled them to respond where other national and international responders could not
Community accountability: Being members of communities themselves allows ERRs to implement informal yet effective accountability measures, such as public complaint handling and transparent procurement rules
My honest assessment: You won’t find GiveWell-style cost-per-life-saved calculations for ERRs. The operating environment makes that impossible. They’re running communal kitchens during bombardments and evacuating people from active conflict zones. The independent research confirms they’re filling critical gaps at massive scale, but if you’re looking for quantified cost-effectiveness metrics, those don’t exist yet.